Historical Society photographs

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:56 pm

The Fall River Historical Society has some pretty clear crime photos at this site: http://www.lizzieborden.org/bordenphotos.htm

The one of Andrew on the couch is quite good and shows the mysterious person to the right.

Alice · Post by **Alice** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:38 pm

Thanks, Harry! I'd never seen those before! They give a much better idea of the size of the rooms, and the lack of blood! And they both have a 'mysterious person' on the right!

diana · Post by **diana** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:13 pm

And if you click on the "Highlighted Exhibit" on that site, you can see Florence Brigham's wedding dress! Thanks, Harry.

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:23 pm

You'tr right, these crime photos do look clearer. I think the mysterious fellow answers the other thread's question about exposure time. It is a wonderful effect: you can see the wallpaper right through his body, then his legs just fade to nothing. The man must have stumbled in at some point during the process; hence there he is (sort of).

--Lyddie

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:08 pm

Thanks, Harry. I haven't been on the FRHS site for a long time, as nothing seemed to be happening. I'm happy to see they're up & running now.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:34 pm

Alice @ Mon Sep 13, 2004 1:38 pm wrote:And they both have a 'mysterious person' on the right!

Alice is right. If you look closely at the extreme right of Abby in the guest room photo you will see what looks like a man seated at the door between Lizzie's room and the guest room.

I don't think we ever figured out who he was but I vaguely remember discussing it in the past.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 8:22 pm

Thanks for the link, Harry! Wow! Those pictures are so crisp compared to what I've seen in the past, just amazing.

Yes, we did discuss the mystery man to the right of the photo in the guest room in the past. Could it have been the photographer himself? A police officer? One of the many doctors waiting to get back at Abby?

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 12:50 am

Just looked at that Walsh photo of the sitting room again. The fellow on the right who appears to be leaning against the door frame - offhand if I had to take a wild guess I would say "policeman" rather than doctor. The striping on the coat cuff - don't we see the same in the group photo that's on the ...hmm, well, I don't see it now but it's the "ca. 1890 or 1900" photo of the police force. The photo illustrates as I recall an identical striping at the cuff of the uniform coats.

(Harry, I'm sure you know the photo I'm thinking of.)

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:44 am

Pleaseclickonpic

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:50 am

This pic from that site shows the same picture which is in The Knowlton Papers and it's noted that it is c. 1894 in that book, not 1890 as on the site.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:55 am

This is the photo referred to. It really is great at the site. But I'm showing it here because I want to point out that there is no doorframe there on that wall, which seems to be the north wall. How did the door molding get there in this exposure? Maybe this man was alreadyon the plate and superimposed?
Is that possible?

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:42 am

I believe that's the doorframe leading into the kitchen -- the picture is somewhat distorted & seems to have been taken from the SE corner of the room.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:09 am

Without a doubt that is the kitchen door frame. It must touch the wall the way the parlor door frame does on the left.

It would be far to coincidental that a double exposure of a man with a door frame would happen to appear precisely where there is, in fact, a door. His size, proportions and location over that little rug in the doorway all indicate that he is part of the photo of Andrew and not a double exposure.

Besides, there would have been lots of comment long before now about how that man had "appeared" in the photo if there wasn't a readily known explanation at the time it was taken. It's a shame he's never been identified, though.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 2:21 pm

Here's a photo Harry provided me which illustrates your points.
Do you think the door is open to the kitchen and he is in the doorway?

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:27 pm

His position with his left arm braced against the doorframe looks as tho he's trying to get clear out of the shot but the lens picked him up anyway. The *ghosting* probably indicates he was moving when the shot was taken...sort of like the ghost-like carriages, etc you see in Victorian street photos.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:33 pm

Can't you just here the photographer Walsh hollering "Don't come in ..." as the flash went off.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:39 pm

I agree with Tina-Kate the ghost men in both photos probably thought they were out of camera range. If the guy in the sitting room walked in during the exposure, I think he'd have been blurred even more.

They both could be guarding the doors to prevent entry by anyone else during the photography.

I wonder why there are not more exposures of these scenes. Was the photographer so sure of himself that he only needed to take one shot of Andrew? Or were there others that didn't come out well or simply didn't survive?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:23 pm

I think the guy is either Harrington or Medley. More likely Medley, if I had to choose between the 2. (These are from Porter):

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:17 pm

Here's a photo Harry provided me which illustrates your points.
Do you think the door is open to the kitchen and he is in the doorway?

The door from the sitting room into the kitchen with the ghostly Medley or Harrington looks to me like it is closed and that he possibly has his left hand on the doorknob.

Robert Harry · Post by **Robert Harry** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:32 pm

Maybe it's the clarity of these FRHS photos--I never really noticed this like I see it now, but now that I look at that coat, it sure does seem that it was stuffed there and not carefully arranged before Andrew sat/reclined on the sofa. I just can't imagine him tossing the coat to the side in such a slovenly manner. Also, the bottom part of the coat seems "turned up" a bit, as if someone tried to push it between the arm of the sofa and whatever is the next object (pillow?) What do you all think?

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:54 pm

Could the coat sticking out so obviously be a result of Andrew's body sliding down so low on the sofa? He must have been up a bit higher than that when the first blow struck.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:17 pm

Do you think the pillow under Andrew's head was higher up on the coat to start?
If it slipped down, is it taking the coat with it?

lydiapinkham · Post by **lydiapinkham** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:19 pm

1--I agree with Doug 650 that the ghost in the doorway is an officer--good eye, Doug--and that Kat's photo pretty well proves it. Can't say, myself, which one I think it is, Kat: he's too blurry.

2--Robert Harry, I agree about the placement of the coat. He isn't using it as a cushion--doesn't need one since his head is already resting on a nice antimacassared (should have had an antimassacre!

) pillow. The location is too high anyway. But the coat appears carelessly wadded when it should have been carefully hung up. I can see what you mean, Stuart, about the possibility of the coat's slipping during the crime, but I think it would slide down or off the arm altogether. Instead it is perched high atop the sofa arm. I really think the killer used or tampered with the coat for some reason.

--Lyddie

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:35 pm

If Andrew removed that coat and put it there and the killer didn't use it- it might have had it's pockets rifled for something.

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:01 am

Do you suppose that the act of stuffing the coat under Andrew's head caused him to slide down?

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:19 am

"Antimassacre"! -- Lyddie, you KILL me! Hehehehe...

In the trial -- I believe it was either Bowen or Dolan -- said re Andrew's position that his body had slid down somewhat before the time the picture was taken.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 8:26 pm

stuartwsa @ Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:01 am wrote:Do you suppose that the act of stuffing the coat under Andrew's head caused him to slide down?

Yes, I think so. I don't know why it wouldn't- as I examine the picture again.
Andrew had slid down a bit from when he was first found until the pictures were taken, tho, as well.
When I lay on the couch, I had my head up a lot higher.
Of course, there was no pillow there either.
I wonder why the *setting* recreated at the house, did not include these details?

Haulover · Post by **Haulover** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 1:25 am

if memory serves, this is the second time that harry has found a superior quality picture of this. (is appreciated!) this one is better in that you can make out the different materials.

i notice two things mostly:

andrew's head is covered up more by the coat than i had realized. and also the coat itself resembles more a figure of some type -- as though someone has taken it off (from himself or from the coat rack) and stuffed it there. looks like the top portion is clearly the neck of the coat -- the part that is erect.

i'm confused about how to reconcile this with what bowen said (looking at the photo) about how andrew appears to have slipped downward, whereas when he had first seen the body, it appeared to be a more natural position of sleep. bowen seems so confused about these type things (the position of abby's hands in comparison to what others said) -- i don't know what i think.

but the better the quality the more it reveals -- though it still just raises questions.

now i remember one witness claiming to see andrew's feet crossed.

so this picture was taken about 3 pm murder day. i've learned to respect Bob G's consistent view that these photos can't be trusted in regard to position of bodies when first seen as compared to what is seen in photos.

another thing about this coat to remember -- as i remember.......we never found an accounting for this coat, did we? we still don't know where it ended up -- whether or how it was examined if at all? that is strange. what happened to this coat? if i remember correctly, it was not among those victim clothing items listed in the witness statements.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 7:16 pm

That was Pettee at the Trial: "His feet was crossed."

Q. Now will you tell us anything that you observed with reference to Mr. Borden's body, or the blood upon it?
A. Well, I noticed the position that he laid in. He was lying on his right side, with the left side exposed. His feet was crossed, and one of them rested on the floor. I noticed the condition of his head,---the condition of the blood that came from it.

Q. Now, state that carefully, if you please, Mr. Pettee.
A. It seemed to me that the blood was quite fresh. I think that I could detect movement in the blood as it passed from his head down under his collar. I don't know that I could explain it any better than I have.

Q. Where did you go then?
A. Then I inquired of Dr. Bowen if Mrs. Borden was dead too, and he said she was. He invited me to go right up stairs with him and look at her, and I did so. I found Mrs. Borden lying in the northeast corner of the room: I should think that she lay on her face; that her head was within perhaps 18 inches of the wall; that she was nearly in the centre of the space between the bed and the dresser. It was quite dark in there, so much so that I could not see very well, and I passed in to her head and got down on my knees and put my hand on her head in order that I might see and feel what the condition of her head was in. As soon as my hand touched her head I noticed that the hair was dry, that it was matted, that it seemed to be very rough

Page 647

on the palm of my hand, and that there was no moisture adhered to my hand when I took it away.

--Pettee used to live there and he got the *Dr. Bowen* tour.
If one wonders what time this was it was "after 11" and a crowd had not formed yet, but Abby had been found.